0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

REGULAR ARTICLES   |    
Short-term clinical prediction of assaultive behavior: artifacts of research methods
Am J Psychiatry 1993;150:1374-1379.
text A A A
PDF of the full text article.
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The apparent accuracy of predictions of assaultive behavior in psychiatric inpatients varies substantially, depending on the method used to study the prediction. The authors explored the effects of different measures and sampling strategies on short-term clinical predictions of dangerousness. METHOD: The index subjects were patients who were rated by intake clinicians as potentially highly assaultive on the ward (N = 32) and patients who were involuntarily committed on grounds of danger to others (N = 32). The respective comparison groups comprised patients predicted by clinicians not to be assaultive (N = 32) and patients committed for reasons other than danger to others (N = 40). The text of unit meetings and data from chart reviews were used to determine the occurrence and dates of violent acts, seclusions for violent acts or threats, and violent threats. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the rate of inpatient violence between the subjects rated at admission as potentially assaultive (75.0%) and patients rated as not potentially assaultive (12.5%), but the difference in the rates of violence between the patients who were (56.0%) and were not (42.0%) involuntarily committed as dangerous to others was not significant. Most of the violent acts occurred relatively late in the hospitalization, but seclusions occurred almost exclusively in the initial stages of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The reported accuracy of clinical predictions of assaultive behavior is markedly affected by the choice of sampling strategy, comparison group, outcome measures, and follow-up period. Including seclusion and violent threats in the outcome variable appears to lead to deceptive findings.

Abstract Teaser
Figures in this Article

Topics

artifacts
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.
Sign In Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.
Sign In to Access Full Content
 
Username
Password
Sign in via Athens (What is this?)
Athens is a service for single sign-on which enables access to all of an institution's subscriptions on- or off-site.
Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now/Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing PsychiatryOnline@psych.org or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

+

References

+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Web of Science® Times Cited: 32

Related Content
Articles
Books
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology, 4th Edition > Chapter 10.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology, 4th Edition > Chapter 10.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology, 4th Edition > Chapter 11.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 7.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 7.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles